Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
(OP)
There has been some discussion in other forums on C&C vs. MWFRS. I am curious as to how different truss manufacturers are analyzing roof trusses. Here, we analyze them using the MWFRS criteria. After reading the other forums I am starting to believe that they may need to be analyzed using C&C.





RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
woodengineer
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
I also agree that the holdowns should be desgined only for MWFRS, but I find many building designers who feel differently about this.
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If you have a truss that spans from wall to wall, and the wind blows from one direction, then the truss support reaction on that side feels that load and sometimes it's a zone 2 or 3 wind - an extreme load due to limited tributary area on that connection.
Later, the wind may blow from the other direction and the other support connection would then feel a high localized wind pressure.
No, they don't occur simultaneously but they do occur separately and each connection should be designed for the worst case.
Can you clarify? Thanks.
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
http://
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System
The rest of your post isn't very clear, or doesn't seem to make sense. Would you mind clarifying?
RE: Components and Cladding Vs. Main Windforce Resisting System